GR 132078; (September, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132078; September 25, 2000
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARTEMIO BERZUELA, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The prosecution established that on December 15, 1993, in Dumangas, Iloilo, a going-away party was held for Rogelio Daras. While Daras was dancing with his back to a window, he was fatally shot from behind. The sole eyewitness, Robert Guelos, testified that he saw accused-appellant Artemio Berzuela fire a shotgun through the kitchen window. Guelos recognized Berzuela, who was illuminated by a kerosene lamp, and noted that Berzuela had opened the window just before the shooting. The autopsy confirmed the victim died from multiple shotgun pellet wounds to the back, fired from a distance of three to five meters.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming Berzuela was asleep at his uncle’s house in the same barangay at the time of the incident. The trial court rejected this defense, giving full credence to the positive identification by the eyewitness. The Regional Trial Court found Berzuela guilty of Murder qualified by treachery and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordering him to pay indemnity and actual damages to the victim’s heirs.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of Murder based on the eyewitness testimony and in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the eyewitness testimony as credible and reliable. The witness had a clear view of the assailant, who was illuminated by a light source, and there was no evidence of any ill motive to falsely testify. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected for being weak and unsubstantiated, especially since it was not physically impossible for the accused to have been at the crime scene.
On the qualifying circumstance, the Court ruled that treachery was duly proven. The attack was sudden and from behind, while the victim was dancing and completely unaware. This method of execution deliberately and effectively deprived the victim of any opportunity to defend himself or retaliate, thereby ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the assailant. The Court modified the damages awarded, adding moral damages. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed, as no other modifying circumstances were present.